Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS) and International Humanitarian Law
(IHL): Challenges of Compliance, Accountability and the Principle of
Meaningful Human Control
INTRODUCTION
• The evolution of warfare into the AI era represents a transformative shift from traditional human-
led combat to advanced technologies.
• AWS are advanced military technologies that use AI to identify, select and engage targets without
human intervention.
• Use of AWS in warfare raises critical questions about their legal compliance with IHL principles
such as distinction, proportionality and military necessity, accountability and the need for
meaningful human control.
AWS IN WARFARE
• ICRC defines AWS as, “Any weapon system with autonomy in its critical functions. That is, a
weapon system that can select (i.e. search for or detect, identify, track, select) and attack (i.e. use
force against, neutralise, damage or destroy) targets without human intervention".
• Examples: STM Kargu-2 ( Turkish-made, strike in Libya, first documented instance of an
autonomous weapon being employed in a military engagement) US Air Force MQ-9 Reaper
( forms an integral part of remotely piloted aircraft systems).
• AWS differ from traditional weapons by integrating AI to function without human intervention,
introducing new legal, ethical and accountability challenges.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK UNDER IHL
• The Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols provide the legal framework to protect
civilians and regulate conduct during armed conflicts. Although drafted before the advent of
modern autonomous systems, these treaties apply to all means and methods of warfare, including
AWS.
• The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) is a key international treaty aimed at
restricting or banning weapons that cause unnecessary suffering.
• Martens Clause: A provision in IHL stating that in cases not covered by specific treaties, civilians
and combatants remain under the protection of “the principles of humanity and the dictates of
public conscience.” Acts as a safeguard against legal gaps, ensuring that emerging technologies
and methods of warfare are still evaluated under broad humanitarian principles.
• Ongoing debates and proposals aim to update legal norms and treaties to effectively govern
AWS.
KEY IHL PRINCIPLES AND AWS CHALLENGES
• IHL is founded on the core principles such as distinction, proportionality and military necessity.
• The Principle of Distinction- requires that parties to a conflict always differentiate between
combatants and civilians, ensuring that only legitimate military targets are attacked while
civilians and civilian objects remain protected.
• The Principle of Proportionality- military operations must balance the expected military
advantage against the potential collateral damage aiming to minimise unnecessary suffering in
armed conflict.
• The Principle of Military Necessity- permits the use of force only to the extent required to
achieve a legitimate military objective, any action taken must be strictly necessary for defeating
the enemy and must not exceed what is essential to secure a military advantage.
ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUES
• The deployment of AWS raises questions about who is responsible for their actions, particularly
when they operate with a high degree of autonomy.
• Military commanders’ responsibility- the doctrine of command responsibility holds commanders
accountable for the violations of their subordinates. The unpredictable nature of AWS creates
legal and ethical complexities.
• State responsibility- States are responsible for the employment, which extends to authorisation,
development and operation of AWS in accordance with IHL frameworks .
• Individual responsibility- The autonomous nature of these weapons make assigning the criminal
responsibility to individuals more complex, diluting the traditional application of legal principles
and thus creating a need to adapt new doctrines for ensuring accountability and responsibility.
